Hydroalcoholic Extracts of Campomanesia lineatifolia R. & P. Seeds Inhibit the Germination of Rumex crispus and Amaranthus hybridus

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I'm sorry but in my opinion the manuscript should be rejected. This is because - I do not know whether for the editorial service or for the authors, and in the latter case it seems to me unbelievable - in the manuscript sent to Horticulturae compared to the one sent to Agronomy I found only two insignificant changes, and that is: Table 2 (only reorganization of the data in the table) and the last sentence of the Conclusion paragraph (“The phenolic compounds present in the hydroalcoholic extract of C. lineatifolia probably contributed to the inhibition of the germination of the two species”).

Author Response

We appreciate the important contributions made to the document; they have been very helpful in improving the quality of the manuscript. Regarding the suggestions made in the version sent to Agronomy, we included most of the suggestions before sending them to Horticulturae. In Table 2 we include what was requested, this was: to correct the classification of the compounds, we also calculated the [M+H]+: protonated molecular ion peak as support for the identification of the compounds. We also include more details of the identification and quantification process in materials and methods.

We decided to keep figures numbers 2 and 4 because present complementary information to the tables. These figures show the germination patterns and the instantaneous germination speed, obtained by functional analysis. These results, as indicated in the document, allow us to present in detail at what moment the extract presents the inhibitory effect, a very important factor that is not shown by the index presented in the tables (percentage of germination and the average speed of germination) and that complement the results very well.

Also, as indicated by the evaluators, we adjusted the discussion and the conclusion, taking into account that we applied an extract with a natural mixture of compounds but we did not apply each of the compounds independently, this was an important mistake of us.

Finally, we also corrected other inaccuracies in the methodology, results, and discussion which were within our reach. It was not possible for us to include the other suggestions, but we consider that the results we present are very important to understand the bioherbicidal potential of C. lineatifolia as a contribution to a more sustainable agriculture.

Reviewer 2 Report

Hydroalcoholic extracts of Campomanesia lineatifolia E. & P. seeds inhibit the germination of Rumex crispus and Amaranthus hybridus

 The presented article contains very interesting information, being able to provide the reader with a clear presentation of the scientific aspects. I would consider this paper of great relevance to the readers on the subject, as this work shows how it is possible to use certain plant extracts as herbicides, hopefully aiding in replacing toxic chemicals. Though some of the mechanistic insights are still unknown, as the differential response from R. crispus seeds to C. lineatifolia extract, this work also expresses that much can be improved in the field. Herbicides from biological origin are a rising need which this work addresses quite well, in my opinion, showing promise to go from laboratory conditions to field testing.

Overall I consider this to be a good article, which can be accepted in the present form. I would only have a minor suggestion in respect to the significant figures of the numbers presented for the equations of the logistic model, tables and text. If not necessary, the numbers could be uniformized and always presented with the same significant figures.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the important favorable opinion and critical perception of the results of our manuscript.

Regarding to the significant numbers, we adjusted the decimal numbers in tables 3 and 5, where the parameters of the logistic model are indicated, even in table 6.

Reviewer 3 Report

The publication needs linguistic correction, especially the description of the results.  The description of the results is inaccurate and there are errors:

Line 182 “…in their order, epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG), quercetin-3-glucoside, epicatechin gallate (ECG)…” p-hydroxybenzoic acid is missed, according to the table 2. it should be mentioned on the third place

Line 209 here should be a reference to Fig. 2b and not to Table 4

Line 232 ”…statistically different differences…” I recommend the use of the term “statistically significant”

In the text there are figures with two decimal places but in Table 4 with one.

Table 4.  and line 258 – between treatments and control are significant differences  

3.5 ± 0.5b

10.2 ± 1.4a

9.5 ± 1.9a

10.8 ± 3.5a

Table 4 and line 266 between treatments and control are significant differences 

Line 286 - Please check if it should be 26 instead 16

Line 301 “…the control and the 9% concentration with 65.0% ± 5.49%...” this data is connected with result of Rumex crispus, in table 6 is “60.5±6.5”

Line 303 “…only a reduction of 52% was observed…” please recalculate, in my opinion it should be 48.8%

Line 306 “…to reduce GP up to 41.1%...” please recalculate, in my opinion it should be 42.1%

Table 6 several application/ MGT “ns” is missed.

 

How the extract components, those with the highest content, affect plant germination can be included in the discussion. For example, how the EGCG effect germination of tomato seeds:

Abscisic Acid and Gibberellins Act Antagonistically to Mediate Epigallocatechin-3-Gallate-Retarded Seed Germination and Early Seedling Growth in Tomato - DOI: 10.1007/s00344-020-10089-1

 

Line 406 “…the isolated flavonoid myricetin had the greatest phytotoxic effect on…” It should be added that myricetin has been isolated from Miconia spp. Without this information, the reader may think that it was isolated from the C. lineatifolia. Furthermore, in the present experiment, no myricetin was found in the extract.

 

Line 434 please recalculate, in my opinion it should be 48.8%

Author Response

Response: done

Line 209 here should be a reference to Fig. 2b and not to Table 4

Response: done

Line 232 ”…statistically different differences…” I recommend the use of the term “statistically significant”

Response: done

In the text there are figures with two decimal places but in Table 4 with one.

Response: tables 4 and 6, we standardize to 1 decimal

Table 4.  and line 258 – between treatments and control are significant differences  

3.5 ± 0.5b

10.2 ± 1.4a

9.5 ± 1.9a

10.8 ± 3.5a

Response: correction done

 

Table 4 and line 266 between treatments and control are significant differences 

Response: correction done

 

Line 286 - Please check if it should be 26 instead 16

Response: correction done

Line 301 “…the control and the 9% concentration with 65.0% ± 5.49%...” this data is connected with result of Rumex crispus, in table 6 is “60.5±6.5”

Response: correction done

Line 303 “…only a reduction of 52% was observed…” please recalculate, in my opinion it should be 48.8%

Response: correction done

Line 306 “…to reduce GP up to 41.1%...” please recalculate, in my opinion it should be 42.1%

Response:  correction done

 

Table 6 several application/ MGT “ns” is missed.

 Response: correction done

 

How the extract components, those with the highest content, affect plant germination can be included in the discussion. For example, how the EGCG effect germination of tomato seeds:

Abscisic Acid and Gibberellins Act Antagonistically to Mediate Epigallocatechin-3-Gallate-Retarded Seed Germination and Early Seedling Growth in Tomato - DOI: 10.1007/s00344-020-10089-1

 Response: done

 

Line 406 “…the isolated flavonoid myricetin had the greatest phytotoxic effect on…” It should be added that myricetin has been isolated from Miconia spp. Without this information, the reader may think that it was isolated from the C. lineatifolia. Furthermore, in the present experiment, no myricetin was found in the extract.

 Response: correction done

 

Line 434 please recalculate, in my opinion it should be 48.8%

Response:  correction done

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I am sorry but I confirm what I wrote and that is that the manuscript should be rejected. In my opinion even with this latest version little has changed in the setting of the test and the validity/usefulness of the results. At this point you decide whether or not to accept it or ask another reviewer.

Author Response

Thank you very much, but as I mentioned in the previous report, all the changes that you suggested when it was sent to the other journal were made.